Wednesday, July 14, 2010

It is understood that criminal gangs often use horrific violence to settle their disputes, because they cannot take their cases to a court of law. This is an example of what can obviously happen when we don't have the rule of law, and must therefore use other mechanisms to substitute.

Also take a look at America with its 50 states unified under a single law-making federal body. It has been hundreds of years now since any of the American states went to war with each other, and I would bet almost certainly that that would not have been the case if the states had not been unified under a federal government.

And now take a look at the world at large - still at war all over the place. Because, in part at least, we do not yet have an international federal body that empowers us to resolve our disputes via the rule of law, on the international level.

The reasoning for having a world governmental body is as sound as the reasoning for having a national governing body. Nationalism has generally achieved remarkable levels of internal (domestic) peace that today we take for granted. So is it so unreasonable to consider taking the principle of unification to the international level?

The problem is, I believe, that we aggressively promote nationalistic patriotism* and to a point where we lose track of the functional meaning of being a unified people. And that nationalistic indoctrination likewise stops us from thinking rationally about the value and meaning of forming an international government.

Yes it is true that an international government can be dangerous, but so can nation states be dangerous, especially when they are at war with each other. So which mode of operation will prove to be the lesser of the evils?

Because we are now a world awash with weapons of mass destruction--if not weapons of absolute destruction--I believe we would be wise to seriously consider developing some form of world government. We should do so for the sake of eliminating wars, poverty, defending human rights, and for global environmental protection. There would be problems with the development of such a thing, but those problems can be addressed.

The American "experiment" offers us an excellent example to work from. For the most part the American model is a good example of how a federal government should be (er, in its non-corrupted form). It operates with a separation of powers, and a strictly defined role with respect to its powers--roles that do not unduly interfere with the autonomy of the individual states.

However, a world government for today's age would need some modifications to its constitution, as compared to the American model.

Most critically we need to respect that we are now a vast 6+ billion and growing. Likewise, we need constitutional laws that can empower a future world government to balance population to resources; and this, in time, will probably require some active population control.

We also need to look at the possibility of employing some negative eugenics so as to maintain the genetic health of our species, long-term. And we also need to develop a constitution that protects the rights of children, and a part of that protection should relate to laws that empower us to stop children from being born to people who are simply too sick (mentally) to take care of them. All controversial stuff, I know. But all very rational and real in its importance.

*I think patriotism is an abstract value, established primarily to empower governments to recruit people into the military for defence. In my view most (if not all?) abstract values are originally derived from only pragmatic needs and ambitions. Unfortunately pragmatic needs can change faster than abstract indoctrinations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Nevermind the spooky music in the background; Mr Bush expresses my point. I wish some of the anti-NWO people could give the idea a chance too.

In my view the anti-NWO movement (sprawled all over the internet) is functioning as an unproductive distraction. The public political focus is "World government versus non-World government", when really we should be looking at discussing what kind of a world government we might want, and how it should function.

This ideal public debate is being suffocated by too-often childishly one-sided anti-world government sentiments, and highly emotive scaremongering of which "teaches" people that the very idea of a world government is their enemy - and without any sincere consideration for its core advantages.

22 comments:

Has the potential to achieve many great things.Actually needed to resolve issues of climate change , pollution , consumption , population control ,all the big issues.

It`s also the same story as zero meat consumption.Not likely to happen .At least not through any conscientious , voluntary , or democratic process.Pipe dream.

It also has the potential to enslave ( to a greater extent than the present ) every human being on this planet.

Lets not even mention multinational companies.

Should the day come when we do have a " World Goverment " the degree of the likelihood of it prevailing is anyone`s guess , sooner or later ,it WOULD be challenged.That would most likely happen through subversive means . if not total anarchy.VERY DANGEROUS.!!!!

Everyone loves money. Even people like myself who abhor the abuse of money and commerce, who understand the fraudulent nature of the system we live in, still work hard and save so that we might attain a sense of stability within that system. Many people see money as a focal point to their existence. But is it really money that they are after, or is it something else entirely? In truth, money represents ‘security’ in the minds of the masses. Money affords us the ability to survive, and the more of it we have, the safer we all feel. Because we subconsciously associate the extension of our very life with the variable health of the economic structure in which we live, we tend to become unwitting devotees to its continued existence, even if it is corrupt and condemned to failure. We gullibly deny the system or the currency that supports it is doomed to the contrary of all evidence because, even though it has beaten us bloody, we have never known anything else.

In light of this entrenched way of perceiving things, especially in the U.S., it is difficult enough to convince some people that the economy is in fact not providing the security they desire, but is actually destroying their future completely. To explain to them that this is deliberate, that the economy is designed to self-destruct, that is another prospect altogether.

Many people hit a proverbial wall on this issue because they simply cannot fathom that certain groups of men (globalists and central bankers) view money and economy in completely different terms than they do. The average American lives within a tiny box when it comes to the mechanics and motivations of finance. They think that their monetary desires and drives are exactly the same as a globalist’s. But, what they don’t realize is that the box they think in was BUILT by globalists. This is why the actions of big banks and the decisions of our mostly corporate establishment run government seem so insane in the face of common sense. We try to rationalize their behavior as “idiocy”, but the reality is that their goals are highly deliberate and so far outside what we have been taught to expect that some of us lack a point of reference. If you cannot see the endgame, you will not understand the steps taken to reach it until it is too late.

In the past we have covered numerous instances in which global bankers have admitted to fraud on a massive scale, fraud which is now crushing our already fragile economy. We have covered the private Federal Reserve and how it knowingly facilitated the creation of the housing bubble, as well as how it is now inflating a Treasury bubble which is soon to implode. We have covered Goldman Sachs and its efforts to promote and sell toxic derivatives all over the world while at the same time betting against those derivatives on the open market. We have covered the manipulation of gold and silver markets by companies like JP Morgan, which have recently been exposed by whistleblowers and GATA investigations. And, most importantly, we have executed in-depth analysis on the growing weakness of the U.S. dollar in preparation for severe currency devaluation. These revelations raise questions, which is natural, but they also illicit misconceptions and reckless knee-jerk reactions, especially when broaching the fact that the illegal strategies of international banks are part of a greater agenda.

Below, we will examine some of the most common narrow minded responses to the issue of engineered economic collapse, as well as why people think the way they do when the “semi-sacred” subject of money is involved…

1. The economy is too complex to be controlled by just a handful of people…

This response often comes from people who make presumptions on economics, rather than actually educating themselves on how the system works. From the outside looking in, the world of finance appears chaotic; a mixture of mathematical and legal standards swirling in a void of mass psychology. Many Americans are either frightened off by the seemingly complicated field of study, or they find it rather boring and not worth their time. This, however, does not stop them from assuming that they know how money works.

The problem is that just because a person participates in his economy daily, it does not mean he has any understanding of how it operates. Many watch television on a daily basis, but few have any idea how the picture actually gets onto the screen, or how to fix a television once it is broken. Sadly, our egocentric culture has led a substantial portion of the public to imagine that they are experts on EVERYTHING, and thus, true researchers in the fields of economics and globalism get reactions like the one above constantly.

At bottom, once all the quasi-technical biz-babble used by mainstream talking heads is removed from the equation, economics is rather simple. Supply and Demand will always be at the center of any and every economy, regardless of the political atmosphere it exists in. These two fundamental factors can be manipulated to a point, by the creation of artificial supply, or the conjuring of false demand. This is achieved in many ways by global bankers, but primarily through domination of the issuance of currency, the ability to change interest rates at will, as well as the ability to inject or remove incredible sums of money from any market.

--also, I only regulate the comments because I don't want my blog looking like a You-Tube forum (if you know what I mean). But yeah, I'm thinking of just letting people post what they want without moderation anyway. I'll look into that a bit later.

btw: I think a good way to sum up my view of a world government is..."I would rather have one gun pointing at my head than 10". For me, so far, the big issue is making sure a world government develops as it *should* develop - with the best possible controls.

Hey some good insights in that post. I fully agree that people do not appreciate that the 'elite' see things from a completely different angle than the rest of us.

I personally believe that the functioning elite have a "human management" mentality; that is, they see human management as their natural role, and to a point where they are inclined to have contempt for the function of their 'official' role of just representing the public.

The elite are--or can be--as interpersonally detached from the people that they manage as you and I are detached from the Chinese labourers who make our cheap goods for us (for example). And of course this can be dangerous: that fundamental detachment can make "tough" decisions too easy to make. The result can be poor (and socially destructive) decisions coming from just indifferent lazy-mindedness alone.

Economics boils down to the supply-demand function? Absolutely agree. Things tend to be simple at their core.

America is screwed because of the raw facts: Too much debt and an eroded productivity base. And no hyper-techno economic jargon will make that fact otherwise. Amazing how so many people just don't get it! (except that they don't want to get it).

In 1901 the national debt of the United States was less than $1 billion. It stayed at less than $1 billion until we got into World War I. Then it jumped to $25 billion.

The national debt nearly doubled between World War I and World War II, increasing from $25 to $49 billion.

Between 1942 and 1952, the debt zoomed from $72 billion to $265 billion. In 1962 it was $303 billion. By 1970, the debt had increased to $383 billion.

Between 1971 and 1976 it rose from $409 billion to $631 billion. The debt experienced its greatest growth, however, during the 1980s, fueled by an unprecedented peacetime military buildup. In 1998, the outstanding public debt will roar past $5.5 trillion. The unconstitutional "share" of this debt for every man, woman and child is currently $20,594.86 and will continue to increase an average of $630 million every day, which dosn't include the $26 trillion in individual credit card debts, mortgages, automobile leases and so on.

Today, as we stand before the dawn of a New World Order run by internationalist financiers, most of the revenue collected by the Federal government in the form of individual income taxes will go straight to paying the interest on the debt alone. At the rate the debt is increasing, eventually we'll reach a point where, even if the government takes every penny of its citizens' income via taxation, it will still not collect enough to keep up with the interest payments. The government will own nothing, the people will own nothing, and the banks will own everything. The New World Order will foreclose on America.

Yep - I know. Crazy debt levels. And clearly these elite people cannot be driven by the money game alone.

So how does America solve its problem? In my opinion it needs to cut off its Federal head - become the ISA (Independent States of America).

The federal government is too deeply and systemically corrupt - it will never help, only hurt. It is a blatant extension of the corporates (which in themselves may be just an extension of powerful money traders). So kill it I say, and not just the central bank. From here maybe start again with a new federal organisation built from the ground up.

I don`t know how many people follow this , and Andrew you would be aware of this , but this may be of interest to someone that may not know :

Power to Coin and Regulate Money

If we could all see and understand the disastrous results of artificially creating a shortage of money, we would all understand why the "Founding Fathers 'of America (who understood money) insisted on placing the power to "create" money ONLY in the hands of the Federal Congress.

ALL Citizens should share in the profits of its "creation" : The Federal government must be the Only creator of money. All citizens, whatever their station in life,would benefit by an adequate and stable currency.Federal government must also be, by law, the ONLY controller of the value of money.

Federal Congress was the only legislative body subject to all the citizens at the ballot box.The only safe depository of so much profit and so much power. "Congress shall have the power to Coin Money and Regulate the Value Thereof."

Loss of Control of the Federal Reserve

America no longer has a constitutional method of creating money , or of putting it into circulation.They now have and entirely unconstitutional system. They are on the brink of disaster.In the years following 1913, all the money had been created and issued by an illegal method that will eventually destroy the United States.

Prior to 1913, America was a prosperous, powerful, and growing nation, at peace with its neighbors and the envy of the world. In December of 1913, Congress, with many members away for the Christmas Holidays, passed what has since been known as The Federal Reserve Act.

(Good reading here :"Conquest or Consent", by W. D. Vennard).

It authorized the establishment of a Federal Reserve Corporation, run by a Board of Directors (The Federal Reserve Board). (Formation of 12 Federal Reserve "Districts.")

This simple,but evil law completely removed from Congress the right to "create" money or to have any control over its "creation", it gave that function to The Federal Reserve Corporation. It was accompanied by the appropriate fanfare. The propaganda claimed that this would "remove money from politics" (they did not say "and therefore from the people's control")and prevent "boom and bust" economic activity from hurting our citizens.

The people were not told then, and most still do not know today, that the Federal Reserve Corporation is a private corporation controlled by bankers and therefore is operated for the financial gain of the bankers over the people rather than for the good of the people. The word "Federal"was used to deceive the people.

Since that day a small group of "privileged" people have gained all of the profits of printing money,and more! Since 1913 they have "created" tens of billions of dollars in money and credit, which, as their own personal property, they can lend to our government and our people at interest (usury).

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" had become the secret policy of the Federal government.

Is there really a power-elite set to take over the world if it can? Maybe, but if it exists then I doubt it will be intending on leaving America to waste. The plan could be to ruin America *temporarily* so as to destroy the market value of its assets: then buy up all those assets for peanuts.

Then re-inflate the value of those assets by facilitating a "revolution" where the "good guys" like Ron Paul regulate properly so as to allow for rapid economic development (real economic development - not debt financing) of which provides for a radical increase in productive capacity from the (elite-possessed) existing infrastucture.

After all, America is the most power nation on earth in the most fundamental way--an all-powerful miltary industrial complex. Would an elite really want to waste that by wasting America? Doubt it. Surely they would rather just claim it? A military power is still fundamental to global domination and control - again, if that really is the game.

Just a thought.

...also: What would a power-elite do with their power if it became absolute? Form the world in their own image. What would that image be?

The most likely outcome that those power hungry " power elite "are seeking is the control of the US , yes indeed."Would an elite really want to waste that by wasting America?" No , not by " wasting " it. By taking it over. This is how it could be done:

1 . Install anarchy first ----- Just by letting things take their course .Let things get bad ....then worse.And , Yes I agree ...buy up all assets cheap....they have already done this before.It was called the great depression. Stock market crashes blah ...blah....It would increase their wealth , but that`s not the goal.

2. The purpose of installing anarchy would ensure a need for a " peace keeper "....it would not be a stretch to imagine that such a force would be welcomed ,to re establish order.Some say it would be a " united nations " of sorts..... call it what you will......... ,it would be bought by the villains financed by them , and ultimately ,controlled by them. It is proposed that this is where their money is , and has been going.

Sounds rather ambitious ? Sure , but with a river of unlimited money , its quite feaseable to be that ambitious.

I like the point , that you make : ( quote )

Just a thought....also: What would a power-elite do with their power if it became absolute? Form the world in their own image. What would that image be?

( quote )

That is a very good question. All I can offer , is that it would have to be a reason in the same vain as the one that drives them to amass and control more money than they could ever handle.My answer is : These people are : MEGALOMANIACS

Megalomania is a word defined as: [1]

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. 2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Not the first time they surfaced.....Adolf gave it a good crack......So did Ghengis Khan , Napoleon , the various Ceasars , history books are full of them.......

What`s different here is the power and influence this time is truly huge , global in fact .The ultimate prize.

A woman in Los Angeles , who had from suffered from deep depression for over 20 years was recently implanted with electrodes to her brain .

Her condition was so severe , she said , that she had disengaged from the world ,which had shrunk to an existence of confinement within two rooms.

After the " fine tuning " of input of the electrical impulses discharged by electrodes implanted deeply in her brain , the results were remarkable.She said she had not felt so well for two decades.Computer scientists and neurologists workingon artificial intelligence are using some of the findings to develop computer chip technologyto mimic emotion in machines.Other advances are being made , it is claimed , by a computer that is able to recognize hundreds of images presented at 1/50th of a second with an accuracy score of 85%.The ability of humans to perform this task was also tested ,with a score of around 65 % , it is claimed .

Neurologists and physicists say that they are at the point where it is now feasable to develop micro chips to treat Altzheimers and Parkinsons desease.( to be continued ....)

It took engineers and scientists twenty years to develop the " human like " robot named Asimo.Asimo can walk like a human , apparently a very difficult undertaking for a machine.This little guy , developed by Honda can also serve drinks at a table , without spilling them , he can ascend stairs , in short , he can move like a human.Micro chip technology coupled to advanced state of the art robotics.With the introduction of these new generation microchips , the quest for an intelligent machine is well under way.The implication is that humans will receive a host of implants derived from this type technology.Humans containing machines.Microchips that ensure a regular heart beat.Microchips to provide hearing , regulate the body`s insulin , thyroid , artificially grown synthetic corneas , not reliant upon donors have become reality.

Some exciting times we live in.

New questions are being asked , for instance :

" As the developed world begins to produce and develop new technologies that allow us to live longer , and make huge medical and scientific advances , what will become of the people in today`s third world ?

Will they ever have access to any of this technology ?

Who will decide ? Can we reach a satisfactory outcome to this ?

Then I had a horrifying thought :

Planned obsolescence ! What if planned obsolescence became part of an ever increasing number human implants regulating organs that sustain the individual`s life ?

No more " old " people ?No one over fifty ?Sixty ? Who will decide ?

Sounds like Blade runner , but we seem to heading in a direction where this could actually become a reality.

Maybe this will become a question for a new world government to decide upon ?

Well, I believe that humans have the ability to master anything mechanical - "cyborgs" are not even remotely unreasonable, in time. The technology supporting this should only accelerate. But hey it's getting a little off topic. You can look up my "technology and you future" if you like.

Not to suggest I don't appreciate your post. I just want to contain things here in a more specific direction. But in saying this you are right: technology will be an ever more powerful player in any future political progression because it facilitates so much "game-changing" level change in itself. I also write along these lines here:

Anyway, I think people could still take a world government seriously if it were presented to them in the right way. America unified 50 independent states under a federal umbrella - other counties are so vast that they could be considered "world models" as well. It can still ultimately be done.

And yes Copenhagen was a foolish sham. It's that sort of thing that will stuff up the development of a "legitimate" world government because people will come to [understandably] fail to trust a world government movement, for even if it is legitimate.

The problem I have with a 1 world government is that so much power concentrated into the hands of so few is the greatest of all dangers. Even if it were to start out good, it only needs to be overthrown to change for much worse.

As well, there is no reason that earth could not be taken care of by separate groups who all see the need to protect and sustain the earth. We should not rely on industry to sustain our existence. We need to be much closer to nature. We do not need World govemnt to do that. In fact, world government actually likes and prefers industry which allows control of labor and allows great power through production of weapons.

It is comforting to think of being rescued if one should fall into unjust trouble with your own. But if we discern we are not appreciated by our own, maybe we ought to be looking around the world at other people who might be more like us.

Biggest problem? World government has to be shoved down our throats and we bullied into going along with it. If it was so great and they were up to such good things, surely we would be happy to welcome them and their rulership. But everything that comes with them seems to be full of lies, treachery, deceit, along with poverty, war, pollution, mass population reduction quickly (mass killing). By their fruits you will know them.

Most people are not amused with what they see come out of world government. So they say no. If it is too bring good, I want to see the good, first.

Subscribe To My Podcast

Pages

Andrew Atkin

The Great New Zealand Housing Disaster: Click on The Real Deal, below.

Why would you buy a home for $500k when you can build a new home for $200k at the city fringe? Answer: Because you can't build a home for $200k at the city fringe. Because the cost of land has been artificially inflated, and to the point of ridiculous. This is the heart of the reason why housing in New Zealand has been able to inflate to such extraordinary degrees. The supply response to increases in demand has been deliberately choked off. At base, this so-called complex issue really is that simple.